Liberal Democrats, Greens and Reform UK: Minor and Emerging Parties

Tick each line you got. Your score builds from the marks on the scheme.

• names a correct minor party, e.g. the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, UKIP or Reform UK.1 mark
• explains a genuine effect of FPTP on that party, e.g. a mismatch between its national vote share and its seat share.1 mark
• uses a correct, specific real detail to support the explanation, e.g. a specific past election result for that party.1 mark
• explains why FPTP produces this effect, e.g. referring to how support is or is not geographically concentrated.1 mark
• draws a clear link between the party's example and the general pattern for minor parties under FPTP.1 mark
• expresses the explanation clearly using accurate terminology.1 mark

Nothing ticked yet - 6 available

Tick each line you got. Your score builds from the marks on the scheme.

• The introduction sets out a clear thesis that directly answers the question, and this thesis is sustained throughout. Each of the three main paragraphs presents a genuine two-sided debate, a point and a counterpoint, with accurate and detailed knowledge, and reaches a supported judgement. The conclusion follows logically from the three paragraph judgements rather than simply restating them. Analysis and evaluation are consistently strong throughout.3 marks
• A clear thesis is stated in the introduction and mostly sustained. Most paragraphs present both sides of the debate with generally accurate, relevant knowledge, though depth or balance may be uneven in one paragraph. Judgements are present in most paragraphs and the conclusion broadly follows from them.3 marks
• A thesis is attempted but may be unclear or only partly sustained across the essay. At least one paragraph is one-sided rather than presenting a genuine debate, which limits the level the answer can reach even where the knowledge shown is accurate. Judgements are inconsistent between paragraphs.2 marks
• Limited or generalised knowledge with little clear structure. Paragraphs tend to describe rather than debate the question, with few or no explicit judgements, and the response may drift away from the question set.2 marks
• Very limited, largely inaccurate or irrelevant knowledge. No clear thesis, paragraph structure or judgement is offered.2 marks
• No relevant content, or the response does not engage with the question.2 marks
• Case for minor parties having more influence than their seats suggest: UKIP is widely credited with pressuring the Conservative Party into offering the 2016 EU referendum, despite winning only one seat itself at the 2015 general election.2 marks
• Case for minor parties having more influence than their seats suggest: the Green Party's sustained campaigning has helped push environmental policy further up the mainstream political agenda, an influence that goes beyond its small number of MPs.2 marks
• Case for minor parties having more influence than their seats suggest: in a hung Parliament, even a small number of minor party MPs can hold significant bargaining power, as the Liberal Democrats did in forming the 2010-2015 coalition government.2 marks
• Case that minor party influence is limited: without seats or ministerial office, a minor party has no direct control over legislation or government policy, unlike the Liberal Democrats briefly had in coalition government.2 marks
• Case that minor party influence is limited: minor parties typically receive less media coverage than the two largest parties, which can restrict their ability to shape the political agenda outside of a single high-salience issue.2 marks
• Case that minor party influence is limited: the Liberal Democrats' loss of support after the 2010-2015 coalition shows that even a period of direct government influence can come at a heavy long-term electoral cost for a minor party.2 marks
• Balanced content: minor party influence tends to be issue-specific, e.g. UKIP and EU membership, the Greens and environmental policy, rather than broad, general influence across the whole range of government policy.2 marks
• A supported conclusion that weighs concrete examples of agenda-setting influence, UKIP and the 2016 referendum, the Liberal Democrats in coalition, against the structural and electoral limits minor parties face, rather than asserting one side without reference to both.2 marks

Nothing ticked yet - 30 available